TB2-10632

TB2-10632

Claim dismissed because the panel found the claimant not credible on key aspects and concluded on the balance of probabilities that a viable internal flight alternative to Port Harcourt existed where she would not face a serious possibility of persecution and could seek state protection; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Citation
TB2-10632
Parties
Claimant: XXXX XXXX XXXX; Panel/tribunal: Roslyn Ahara; Respondent/minister: Minister of Immigration
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of Refugee Protection Division (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Refugee protection claim rejected by the Refugee Protection Division
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee Status, Internal Flight Alternative, Credibility Assessment, Religious Conversion, Association With LGBT, Risk of Persecution/torture
Source Language
English
Immigration and Refugee Protection Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Status Internal Flight Alternative Credibility Assessment Religious Conversion Association With LGBT +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXX XXXX XXXX

Claimant

Roslyn Ahara

Panel/tribunal

Minister of Immigration

Respondent/minister

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim Under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act / Decision of Refugee Protection Division (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility of claimant's testimony

Ratio Decidendi

Claim dismissed because the panel found the claimant not credible on key aspects and concluded on the balance of probabilities that a viable internal flight alternative to Port Harcourt existed where she would not face a serious possibility of persecution and could seek state protection; therefore she is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97(1).

Court Disposition

Refugee protection claim rejected by the Refugee Protection Division